Papal prerogatives

[Fr_Ambrose]

Forgive me for disagreeing. I believe Canon 42 is meant to define the scope of the Chapter “The Supreme Authority of the Church”- the College of bishops with the Pope as its head. It is intended to state that the Supreme authority in the Church is NOT the Pope ALONE.

Under what circumstances may a Bishop override the authority of the Pope? What canons specify the authority of a Bishop to do this? Such a grave matter cannot be left to be “inferred.” It must be explicit and contained in the canons.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t really think Orthodox have any place in this discussion, although we were invited to participate.

The thread should be moved to Apologetics or Traditional Catholicism where we can get some consensus from the Latin Christians, who make up an overwhelming majority of the Roman Catholic communion of churches and have reference to the Magisterium of their church.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I don’t really think Orthodox have any place in this discussion, although we were invited to participate.

Michael,

I think this is the right thread for the discussion because

1. the claim is that Eastern Catholics are exempt from papal authority in certain circumstances
2. these exemptions will apply to the Orthodox when we finally “come home.”

But I agree that it is also a discussion which would benefit from an airing among the wider Catholic community.

 

[mardukm]

Michael,

I think this is the right thread for the discussion because

1. the claim is that Eastern Catholics are exempt from papal authority in certain circumstances
2. these exemptions will apply to the Orthodox when we finally “come home.”

But I agree that it is also a discussion which would benefit from an airing among the wider Catholic community.

Thank you Father. In fact, I posted a poll in the Apologetics section as well, but have gotten only one response (“It is correct”). I guess Latins in general (except for those of an awareness of non-Latin Catholic issues) are not as keen on the problems of the exercise of the papal prerogatives as the Easterns and Orientals are.

You know, after I read the options I placed for the EO/OO, I realized immediately that all the answers would be “not acceptable.” I wish I could have changed one of the options to “more acceptable than what you commonly perceive.”

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Under what circumstances may a Bishop override the authority of the Pope? What canons specify the authority of a Bishop to do this? Such a grave matter cannot be left to be “inferred.” It must be explicit and contained in the canons.

Great question, Father. If you don’t mind, I need to get some sleep right now. For now, just let me say that there are no general circumstances by which a singular bishop can override the authority of the Pope except as specified in the canons. I will show you some of those canons upon return.

Also, to clarify, what I stated regarding Canon 42 applies to the WHOLE college, not to singular bishops. And please understand that when Catholics and Orientals say “college” or “synod” we ALWAYS mean to include the head bishop. There is no question to us of a college or synod being ABOVE the head bishop. All deliberations of the apostolic college or synod ALWAYS intimately and inherently INCLUDE the head bishop, even when that college or synod is called to reconsider or judge the actions of the head bishop.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[twf]

I believe that the Pope can, in theory, change canon law at whim. It would, however, be an abuse, and potentially (on his part) a mortal sin in many cases. I like Yeshua’s allusion to the power of ordination. A bishop could come up to me tomorrow morning as I walk along the sidewalk and ordain me to the priesthood; the ordination would be valid, but it would be an extreme abuse of his authority (“do not be hasty with the laying on of hands” as Paul instructed Timothy). We must remember that Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and the power of binding and loosing. As surely as the Pope can bind the Church to follow a certain canon he can loose the Church from the same. That being said, the Pope can’t do ‘whatever’ he wants…there certainly are restrictions. He is bound by Sacred Tradition, and in particular, by infallible declarations of faith promulgated by his predecessors and the ecumenical councils. The pope can freely change canons pertaining to discipline, but not those pertaining to doctrine.

A good example would be the case of clerical celibacy versus women in the priesthood. The Holy Father could, in theory, wake up tomorrow and rescind the canons pertaining to clerical celibacy allowing the Latin Church to ordain married men; he could not, however, suddenly admit women into the priesthood. John Paul II (of blessed memory) made it clear that the Church (including, of courrse, the Roman Pontiff) has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women to the priesthood.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I believe that the Pope can, in theory, change canon law at whim. It would, however, be an abuse, and potentially (on his part) a mortal sin in many cases. I like Yeshua’s allusion to the power of ordination. A bishop could come up to me tomorrow morning as I walk along the sidewalk and ordain me to the priesthood; the ordination would be valid, but it would be an extreme abuse of his authority (“do not be hasty with the laying on of hands” as Paul instructed Timothy). We must remember that Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and the power of binding and loosing. As surely as the Pope can bind the Church to follow a certain canon he can loose the Church from the same. That being said, the Pope can’t do ‘whatever’ he wants…there certainly are restrictions. He is bound by Sacred Tradition, and in particular, by infallible declarations of faith promulgated by his predecessors and the ecumenical councils. The pope can freely change canons pertaining to discipline, but not those pertaining to doctrine.

A good example would be the case of clerical celibacy versus women in the priesthood. The Holy Father could, in theory, wake up tomorrow and rescind the canons pertaining to clerical celibacy allowing the Latin Church to ordain married men; he could not, however, suddenly admit women into the priesthood. John Paul II (of blessed memory) made it clear that the Church (including, of courrse, the Roman Pontiff) has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women to the priesthood.

Is that ex cathedra?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TWF,

I believe that the Pope can, in theory, change canon law at whim. It would, however, be an abuse, and potentially (on his part) a mortal sin in many cases. I like Yeshua’s allusion to the power of ordination. A bishop could come up to me tomorrow morning as I walk along the sidewalk and ordain me to the priesthood; the ordination would be valid, but it would be an extreme abuse of his authority (“do not be hasty with the laying on of hands” as Paul instructed Timothy). We must remember that Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and the power of binding and loosing. As surely as the Pope can bind the Church to follow a certain canon he can loose the Church from the same. That being said, the Pope can’t do ‘whatever’ he wants…there certainly are restrictions. He is bound by Sacred Tradition, and in particular, by infallible declarations of faith promulgated by his predecessors and the ecumenical councils. The pope can freely change canons pertaining to discipline, but not those pertaining to doctrine.

A good example would be the case of clerical celibacy versus women in the priesthood. The Holy Father could, in theory, wake up tomorrow and rescind the canons pertaining to clerical celibacy allowing the Latin Church to ordain married men; he could not, however, suddenly admit women into the priesthood. John Paul II (of blessed memory) made it clear that the Church (including, of courrse, the Roman Pontiff) has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women to the priesthood.

That is a good example, but it is not complete. Everyone knows that possibility would only apply to the LATIN Church. I don’t know of any EC/OC who would agree that the Pope has been invested with that kind of authority for any other Patriarchal Church.

I think we can all agree that the case of Diaspora priests is unique, and not uncanonical, since all the “West” has traditionally been regarded as Latin territory (except perhaps for some parts of Alaska). It is only recently that in an act of magnanimity the Pope has given up the title “Patriarch of the West” (and I don’t understand the non-Catholic complaints about it).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Is that ex cathedra?

What do you mean? That the Pope has no authority to allow women to be ordained to the priesthood? If that is what you mean, the answer would be “no.” The authority of Sacred Tradition equals the authority of an ex cathedra pronouncement. In this case, it is the authority of Sacred Tradition that is being appealed to for justification.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear all,

Thank you for your patience. As I was busy answering posts and e-mails upon my return during this session, I have not had time to formulate my response which will include the canons that “limit” the Pope’s power. It will have to wait till next time, and I promise to get to this issue first before anything else.

BTW, I put “limit” in quotes because most things the Pope is “limited” in doing are things he was never authorized to do in the first place (e.g., ordaining women priests).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

What do you mean? That the Pope has no authority to allow women to be ordained to the priesthood? If that is what you mean, the answer would be “no.” The authority of Sacred Tradition equals the authority of an ex cathedra pronouncement. In this case, it is the authority of Sacred Tradition that is being appealed to for justification.

The opinion of Pope John Paul on this matter has certainly not been accepted by Catholics. As we have discussed earlier the Catholic priests of Australia charged Cardinal Pell to ask for the reopening of the debate on women priests at the last Synod in Rome.

Pope John Paul II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

But it is more than obvious that this is not accepted as ex cathedra or the Australian priests would not have questioned it, any more than they would question the Immaculate Conception or the Assumptiom.

 

[mardukm]

The opinion of Pope John Paul on this matter has certainly not been accepted by Catholics. As we have discussed earlier the Catholic priests of Australia charged Cardinal Pell to ask for the reopening of the debate on women priests at the last Synod in Rome.

Pope John Paul II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

But it is more than obvious that this is not accepted as ex cathedra or the Australian priests would not have questioned it, any more than they would question the Immaculate Conception or the Assumptiom.

Great point, Father Ambrose!

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mtr01]

The opinion of Pope John Paul on this matter has certainly not been accepted by Catholics. As we have discussed earlier the Catholic priests of Australia charged Cardinal Pell to ask for the reopening of the debate on women priests at the last Synod in Rome.

Pope John Paul II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

But it is more than obvious that this is not accepted as ex cathedra or the Australian priests would not have questioned it, any more than they would question the Immaculate Conception or the Assumptiom.

Any opportunity to bring up dissidents…

Anyhow, all one has to do is look to the dubium concerning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to understand that while not ex cathedra, it is an infallible statement as put forth by the ordinary magisterium:

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

     Responsum: In the affirmative.

     This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the         written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and         applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly         by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council,         Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *Lumen Gentium* 25, 2). Thus,         in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper         office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this         same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be         held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the         faith. [ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM)

Therefore the Australian priests (which? how many? certainly not all of them…) are no more justified in questioning this teaching (not opinion) than they would be questioning the Immaculate Conception or Assumption.

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

twf:

A good example would be the case of clerical celibacy versus women in the priesthood. The Holy Father could, in theory, wake up tomorrow and rescind the canons pertaining to clerical celibacy allowing the Latin Church to ordain married men

That is a good example, but it is not complete. Everyone knows that possibility would only apply to the LATIN Church.

I believe the Pope has the power to change the ecclesiastical laws of the eastern churches as well, since his power extends over the Universal Church at large which includes them.

Also, that phrase from Pope Benedict XIV in Magnae Nobis is a general principle in Catholic theology – it doesn’t just apply to that one case of marriage dispensations.

From Dr. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

As the supreme lawgiver of the Church, the Pope is not legally bound by ecclesiastical decisions and usages, but by divine law alone. This demands that the Papal power, in consonance with its purpose, should be employed for the building-up of the Mystical Body of Christ, not for its destruction (II Corinthians 10:8). The divine law, therefore, is an efficacious brake on arbitrariness. The third Gallican article, which demanded a far-reaching limitation of the exercise of the Papal power, was properly rejected. [page 286]

And just for further clarification, here is part of the third Gallican article which was condemned [taken from *Dezinger’s 1324],

Hence the use of apostolic power must be moderated by the canons which have been established by the Spirit of God and consecrated with reverence by the whole world.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mikee,

Your knowledge is inspiring!

I believe the Pope has the power to change the ecclesiastical laws of the eastern churches as well, since his power extends over the Universal Church at large which includes them.

I don’t doubt it, but not on a whim, and not before going through normal channels of local Synodal approval. If I recall correctly, even the unions in the Middle Ages were achieved not by a unilateral imposition of norms, but by a dialogue and mutual agreement with local Synods (admittedly, except in those areas where the non-Latin Church was begun by Latin missionary activity, such as in Egypt).

Also, that phrase from Pope Benedict XIV in Magnae Nobis is a general principle in Catholic theology – it doesn’t just apply to that one case of marriage dispensations.

Forgive my intransigence, but we’ll need more proof than that circumstance which does not NECESSARILY prove your case.

From Dr. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

To be perfectly frank, Dr. Ott was not around when the new Code of Canons Law were enacted.

And just for further clarification, here is part of the third Gallican article which was condemned [taken from *Dezinger’s

1324],
That must be taken in its historical context, for there are currently some Canons that DO limit the Pope’s authority. In any case, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes: “This article [the Third] called forth hardly any protests from the adversaries of Gallicanism.” Very telling, don’t you think?

When I return, I will bring forth those canons.

Thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut. They are enlightening, refreshing, and thought-provoking.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Any opportunity to bring up dissidents…

Anyhow, all one has to do is look to the dubium concerning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to understand that while not ex cathedra, it is an infallible statement as put forth by the ordinary magisterium:

Ease up, brother! Father Ambrose did not deny my statement that the authority of the decree comes from Sacred Tradition (which is infallible, I’m sure he would agree). He simply stated that its authority did not come by virtue of an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mikee,

The power of orders comes directly from God. That is, a bishop is validly ordained even if without papal mandate. But in order to exercise the power of jurisdiction, a bishop needs the Pope’s approval and consent.

“There is another important item on which the Mystici Corporis Christi issues a doctrinal decision. Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this document, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops’ power of jurisdiction and he described it as something “which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff.” In the edition of his Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici which came out after the issuance of the Mystici Corporis Christi, Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.” (Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church)

I completely missed this before. Forgive me for not responding to it earlier.

It is NOT true that the power of jurisdiction comes from the Pope. The power of jurisdiction comes from the power of orders. Here is what Mystici Corporis more completely states: “although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same supreme pontiff.” Seems contradictory? Not really, especially when one considers that it is Catholic law that the Pope can change the GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES of jurisdictions, or create NEW ONES. That is all that Pope Pius meant - that the territory of the bishop (his bishopric or See) is the Pope’s to grant. But the power of jurisdiction is part and parcel of the power of the bishop which he receives directly from God. I mean think about it - why would God give a bishop powers for the edification of his flock, if it was not already presupposed that he had a flock to edify?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Hello,
No, they have not placed themselves under anathema. With any teaching in the Church, there is no anathema or excommunication until such denial or doubt becomes obstinate.

Well OK then…

Would you settle for…

Say…

Non-obstinate quasi-anathematics???

Arsenios

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

Here is what Mystici Corporis more completely states: “although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same supreme pontiff.”

Hmmm… What translation are using? I’m basing mine on the Vatican web site’s translation, which reads:

“Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

The above is basically identical in Denzinger’s; and there is no copy of the encyclical online that has the translation “inherent in their office”, either

 

[mardukm]

Hmmm… What translation are using? I’m basing mine on the Vatican web site’s translation, which reads:

“Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

The above is basically identical in Denzinger’s; and there is no copy of the encyclical online that has the translation “inherent in their office”, either

A book by the Jesuits called “The Church Teaches.” From 1955, with the imprimatur of Archbishop Hunkeler, D.D. The foreword says the translators were all Latin and Greek scholars. And the book was intended for a college course in dogmatic theology.

But the difference is fascinating. ANOTHER thing I’m gonna have to contact my Latinist friend about. I’m willing to forestall any conclusions based on that text at this point. How about you?

Blessings,
Marduk